(The Disneycember logo is shown, before showing clips from Ice Age "Pink Lemonade" by Silent Partner plays in the background)
Doug (vo): Okay, so I don't know if you've heard me in one of the previous videos, but I have never seen an Ice Age movie. I just had no interest. It's honestly kind of impressive how they keep making these movies, and not once, I mean even once, have I had an inkling to check out. Why? Because I feel like I've seen the best scene in the trailer, that little squirrel-woodchuck-butt always trying to get the acorn. It's always hilarious. There's no dialogue, it's all slapstick, and it's usually super-creative and super-funny. And then every time I'd see the mammoth, the tiger, the sloth, I'm like, "Oh, now it's every other CG film ever made." It didn't look terrible, it just looked...frustratingly average. And don't get me wrong, a part of me gets it. It's 2002, people haven't really gotten CG films figured out. What were we at, like, Monsters, Inc. at that point? It's funny, because back then, this got a big screen release, and you could tell it was kind of cheaper animation, but, you know, still worth being shown on big screen. But now? It looks like a direct-to-DVD movie. But again, I understand. Different budgets, and people wanting to experiment with CG. Just, it's hard to explain. Early experimenting with 3D animation just isn't anywhere near as interesting to me as early experimenting with 2D animation. Maybe if I was a computer animator or something... (A shot of a black-and-white 2D animated short featuring dinosaurs is shown) ...but this just looks amazing to me, and this looks like shit. I just can't get that much value out of it. So, okay, I've gone into all the reasons why I've avoided these movies like the plague, but now, for this year's Disneycember, I'm finally checking them out. What'd I think of the first one? (Sighs) Sorry to disappoint, it's exactly what I thought I was gonna get. This is gonna be a hard movie to review, because let me make it really, really clear. This is not a bad film. I just don't like it. I think this is a film made specifically for kids, there's not much in it for adults, a little bit, but it's clearly not trying to hit them as much as the kids in the audience, and I think it does that fine. But it does it with stuff I've seen in a million other animated films, and it just makes me wishing I was watching those other animated films.
Story[]
Doug (vo): The story takes place, as it spells out, during the Ice Age. A woolly mammoth, played by Ray Romano, befriends a sloth, played by John Leguizamo. They discover a baby separated from his family right after the mother is killed by a pack of tigers, and one of the sabre-toothed-tigers, played by Denis Leary, is supposed to finish the job and kill him off, but he just can't bring himself to do it, and, you know the drill. They make an unlikely trio, and they have to take care of the child while trying to get him back to his family. "Three Mammals and a Baby", I guess.
Review[]
Doug (vo): So, all right, I'm gonna give you my theory on this movie, and I really mean this. I don't have anything to back it up, this is just a theory. I think this was meant to be a silent film. The CG movie Dinosaur was gonna do the same thing, but then they said, "No, no, no. It can't be silent. They have to talk." And they got a bunch of celebrities together and wrote a bunch of lame dialogue, and we got that movie. I swear this was the same setup, because you could put this on mute and follow everything that's going on. Honestly, the best moments in the movie are silent, the opening scene with that little woodchuck-squirrel thing. There's a great moment where the mammoth sees these cave drawings, almost like it's showing his family and what happened to them and the history of his species, and there's not one word uttered. The scenes of the humans traveling, and even when they meet up with the woolly mammoth who has the baby, it's not even like that heart-tugging a scene at first. It's actually kind of intense, and it's not that badly done. No talking through any of those scenes. Had the film been like this throughout the entire thing, I think I would've enjoyed it more. I don't think I would've said it's, like, a masterpiece or anything, 'cause, again, the animation is kind of cheap, but I get it. It was a new animation studio, it was a new style of CG, I understand. But at least that would've made it unique.
(Footage focusing on the film's animal characters is shown)
Doug (vo): But because they did go the traditional route, the animals do talk and they all have celebrity voices, and...it's not the worst, it's just so standard. I mean, listen to this opening dialogue. Doesn't it sound like it's trying to copy Toy Story?
(Several shots during the film's opening sequence are shown, first showing two glyptodons speaking with each other)
Glyptodon #1: Where's Eddie?
Glyptodon #2: Ah, he said something about being on the verge of an evolutionary breakthrough.
(Then we see two freaky mammals speaking with each other)
Macrauchenia #1: I'm just saying, how do we know it's an ice age?
Macrauchenia #2: (looking annoyed) Because...of all...THE ICE!
(We go back to the glyptodons talking, as we see in the background the glyptodon named Eddie jumping off a cliff, expecting to fly)
Eddie: I'm flying...! (Crashes straight into the ground)
Glyptodon #1: Some breakthrough.
Doug (vo): Does anything stand out about it? No. It's just how CG films talked back then, particularly Pixar, because they practically created this style. But where they would add a lot of new twists and turns, this does a lot of the same, and everything you'd think would happen pretty much happens. But, sure, is there anything really bad in it? Is there anything that I'd be, like, "Oh, my God, skip this at all costs, it's so painful"? No.
(Several clips focusing on Sid the Sloth are shown)
Doug (vo): Eh...for the most part. John Leguizamo's kind of annoying.
Sid the Sloth: Well, I think you're stressed, and that's why you eat so much. I mean, it's hard to get fat on a vegan diet. / And I thought, "Whoa, she's gonna go praying mantis on me." You know what I'm saying?
Doug (vo): I don't blame him. Honestly, I always find myself kind of rooting for this actor, because I feel like he throws in so much passion and he does have so much talent. But he does need a good project, a good script, a good director, and I don't know who heard this voice and said, "Yeah, let's put up with that for an hour and a half." But...it becomes so grating so quick to me.
Sid: (attempting to act like he's being attacked) Oh, no! A tiger! Help! Help!
Doug (vo): But again, I feel like kids would love this voice. I don't know. If I was a little kid, I'd probably be laughing a lot at him, and like I said, how can I be angry at a kids' movie giving you what kids want?
(Footage focusing on the baby that the three main characters take care of throughout the movie is shown)
Doug (vo): I'll also say what you're probably not supposed to say: the baby is ugly. It's weird, because the rest of the people look okay. There's nothing really off-putting about them. But just looking at this baby kind of freaks me out. I just did not form an attachment to this thing. And when that's the emotional center of the film, that's gonna be a problem.
(Footage focusing on the characters of Diego the tiger and Manny the mammoth is shown)
Doug (vo): But honestly, a lot of this stuff is fine. I mean, Denis Leary's really doing his usual schtick where he tells a lot of, like, funny, fast lines, and it's a little refreshing, but they don't really give him anything else to do. He's just kind of the tough guy with a secret, and, yes, it does result in a "liar revealed" story. But to their credit, they get past it really quick, I mean, like, refreshingly quick. I mean, there's no sulking and just walking around feeling bad for themselves. Like, they address it and they move on. I really, really like that. Ray Romano is probably the best cast in the movie. His voice surprisingly really goes well with this thing. I think because his design puts so much focus on the eyes and not much else, I mean, you can't really see the mouth or the eyebrows or anything like that. I think the voice really plays a big part in giving it personality. And Ray Romano, I think is often underestimated when it comes to his dramatic performances. (A poster for Netflix's Paddleton, starring Romano, is shown) I mean, yes, this is a comedy and it's a kids' comedy, but when he needs to do the serious moments, he does pull them off, and without much. The lines are still very short and very tight, but he gets across so much emotion every time he says them. He's one of the few things I legitimately want to follow all the way through.
Final thought[]
Doug (vo): But here's the thing. I'm an adult in 2022 looking back at a kids' movie, a kids' CG movie, from 2002...that isn't Pixar or DreamWorks. Am I really supposed to be that sucked in to this movie? I just straight-up don't think it's made for me. I guess I would say, if this was a direct-to-DVD movie, like it came out today, I'd say it's above average. And if it was a film that came out today in theatres, I'd say it's below average. But it's not awful, nor is it great. But on the plus side, everybody disagreed, because apparently, this film was such a big hit, they made sequel after sequel after sequel, and maybe one of those will do better. Maybe they'll evolve to a point where I absolutely enjoy these films. But this first one didn't grab me, and it's not a surprise. The trailer didn't grab me, nothing about this grabbed me. But, yes, I think there's definitely a crowd for it even today, mostly of kids, but I think even one or two adults might get sucked into it a little bit, too. So is that a recommendation or not? It's an...eh. Like I said, a tricky movie to review, but I know there's a lot more of these to look over, so I guess I'll see you in the next "eh" age.
(One of the film's final scenes, showing the three main characters walking straight towards south, is shown)